1 |
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:22:09PM +0100, Christian Ruppert wrote: |
2 |
> Hey guys, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1]. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> <snip> |
7 |
> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following |
8 |
> system: |
9 |
> |
10 |
> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED" |
11 |
|
12 |
This seems mildly insane; sure you didn't mean UNCONFIRMED? |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
> "ASSIGNED" will become "IN_PROGRESS" |
16 |
> "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED" (and the "REOPENED" status will be |
17 |
> removed) |
18 |
|
19 |
Similarly weird. |
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
> "CLOSED" will become "VERIFIED" (and the "CLOSED" status will be removed) |
23 |
|
24 |
VERIFIED != CLOSED; CLOSED means "this issue should be fixed", |
25 |
VERIFIED means "this issue is confirmed fixed by whatever qa/testing |
26 |
in use"- specifically beyond the developer's testing. |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
> We're almost done with the preparation of bugzilla-4.x for bugs.gentoo.org. |
30 |
> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old? |
31 |
|
32 |
The new is more orientated towards bugzilla workflow's that have |
33 |
actual secondary validation of a change- developer fixes it, closes |
34 |
it, QA marks it verified, that sort of thing. |
35 |
|
36 |
That doesn't really fit our flow all that much, as such we really |
37 |
shouldn't be taking their defaults without tweaking it a bit. |
38 |
|
39 |
~brian |